Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 340

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Apomorphine subcutaneous infusion in patients with Parkinson's disease with persistent motor fluctuations (TOLEDO): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Open access
Katzenschlager, Regina, Poewe, Werner, Rascol, Olivier, Trenkwalder, Claudia, Deuschl, Günther, Chaudhuri, K Ray, Henriksen, Tove, van Laar, Teus, Spivey, Kevin, Vel, Senthil, Staines, Harry, Lees, Andrew·2018·The Lancet Neurology

Abstract

BACKGROUND Subcutaneous apomorphine infusion is a clinically established therapy for patients with Parkinson's disease with motor fluctuations not optimally controlled by oral medication. Open-label studies have shown that apomorphine infusion is effective in reducing off time (periods when antiparkinsonian drugs have no effect), dyskinesias, and levodopa dose, but confirmatory evidence from double-blind, controlled studies is lacking. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of apomorphine infusion compared with placebo in patients with Parkinson's disease with persistent motor fluctuations despite optimised oral or transdermal treatment. METHODS In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre trial, we enrolled patients at 23 European hospitals who had been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease more than 3 years previously and had motor fluctuations not adequately controlled by medical treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a computer-generated randomisation code, stratified by site, to receive 3-8 mg/h apomorphine or placebo saline infusion during waking hours (16 h a day [range 14-18 was acceptable]) for 12 weeks. The flow rate of the study drug and other oral medications could be adjusted during the first 4 weeks on the basis of individual efficacy and tolerability, after which patients entered an 8-week maintenance period. The primary endpoint was the absolute change in daily off time based on patient's diaries, and was assessed in the full analysis set, which was defined as all patients who received at least one dose of allocated study drug and had efficacy data available at any timepoint post-baseline. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of apomorphine or placebo. All study participants and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. Both the 12-week double-blind phase and the 52-week open-label phase of this study are now complete; this paper reports results for the double-blind phase only. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02006121). FINDINGS Between March 3, 2014, and March 1, 2016, 128 patients were screened for eligibility and 107 were randomly assigned, of whom 106 were included in the full analysis set (n=53 in both groups). Apomorphine infusion (mean final dose 4·68 mg/h [SD 1·50]) significantly reduced off time compared with placebo (-2·47 h per day [SD 3·70] in the apomorphine group vs -0·58 h per day [2·80] in the placebo group; difference -1·89 h per day, 95% CI -3·16 to -0·62; p=0·0025). Apomorphine was well tolerated without any unexpected safety signals. Six patients in the apomorphine group withdrew from the study because of treatment-related adverse events. INTERPRETATION Apomorphine infusion results in a clinically meaningful reduction in off time in patients with Parkinson's disease with persistent motor fluctuations despite optimised oral or transdermal therapy. FUNDING Britannia Pharmaceuticals.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1474-4422(18)30239-4

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Katzenschlager, R., Poewe, W., Rascol, O., Trenkwalder, C., Deuschl, G., Chaudhuri, K. R., Henriksen, T., van Laar, T., Spivey, K., Vel, S., Staines, H., & Lees, A.
Venue
The Lancet Neurology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-09
Volume
17
Issue
9
Pages
749-759
ISSN
1474-4422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2884603783
Cited by
340
References
5
FWCI
20.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.